Questions:
1. According to the research presented by Stephanie Coontz, how does divorce affect children, and what factors account for the variation in these effects?
2. According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, what factors affect short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce?
3. According to Carr, what three factors are the most important influences on spousal bereavement? How does gender shape the experience of spousal loss?
1. According to Coontz, the effects of divorce on children tend to be over exaggerated. While it is true that ending a marriage is an agonizing process on all parties involved, it is not right to say that children in divorced families have more problems, but that more children of divorced parents have problems. Studies showed that while there was a connection with lower levels of child well-being and divorce, overall they were not significantly large. The more controlled the studies were, the smaller the reported differences: "The large majority of children of divorce do not experience severe or long-term problems: Most do not drop out of school, get arrested, abuse drugs, or suffer long-term emotional distress" (100). Divorce does not account for the most social problems such as high school dropout rates or teen pregnancy. Coontz cites the research of Mavis Hetherington that revealed that 20 to 25 percent of kids from divorced families have behavior problems. But that means that 75 to 80 percent, the majority, do not have such problems. So many of the problems seen in children of divorce are caused by factors that can potentially result from divorce, like poverty, financial loss, school relocation, or a prior history of marital conflict (101). Therefore, it is fair to say that divorce causes conditions and situations that can cause many childhood problems, but divorce itself does not lead to such problems. Children in intact families that have high levels of conflict tend to do worse that children in divorced families because they are constantly exposed to fighting. Problems resulting from divorce can be avoided by parents. The worst problems result from when a mother's attention is distracted by depression, anger, or economic pressures, but many of these characteristics are often already existing in the mother prior to divorce (104). Another effect is conflict between parents. Children in disputed custody cases experience the most problems, therefore, divorcing parents should not involve their children in the divorce by bad-mouthing the other parent or making them choose sides.
2. According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, there are both short term and long term adjustment periods for children of divorce. They call the first two years following the separation a "crisis period". This period is where the short term problems arise and when they need the most emotional support. Children initially experience shock, anxiety, and anger when they learn of the breakup. Children have two special needs during this time: they need extra emotional support, and they need "structure provided by a reasonably predictable daily routine" (493). There are 2 general types of behavioral problems seen among childrenof divorce. The first is externalizing disorders, which is behavior directed outward resulting in aggression, disobedience, or lying. The second is to internalize disorders, resulting in depression, anxiety or withdrawal (493). Generally, boys experience more aggressive and antisocial behavior than girls, but girls tend to internalize their problems more. Overall, children are moderately or severely distressed when their parents separate and most go through a period of confusion, sadness, or anger for months or years afterward (494). Most children recover from the crisis period within 2 or 3 years. While it is probably true that many young adults always have the memories of their parent's divorce, it doesn't necessarily impair their own functioning as adults. It is possible that if their parents had remained together, they might have had equally or more painful memories of a dysfunctional marriage (495). Studies show that the majority of children from divorced homes do not misbehave in school. Overall, Furstenberg and Cherlin conlcude that while there does exist a minority that are greatly affected for a long period of time, the majority are not.
3. According to Carr, the three factors that are the most important influences on spousal bereavement are the age of the husband and wife, how the spouse died, and what the couple's relationship was like prior to the death (24). Of the 900,000 Americans who lose a spouse each year, 75% are 65 or older (24). Older bereaved spouses have a support system that younger widows and widowers do not have in their friends, peers, and siblings, who they may have watched go through the same experience before them. In a way, this allows the to "rehearse" and prepare themselves for the same thing, and they can turn to turn to one another for wisdom and support. Death also changes in meaning when you get older. It is viewed as a natural event that they expected to happen, its not as though their time together was cut short. Older people are also better able to regulate their emotions. (24-25). Secondly, the cause of death is also an important factor. The leading causes of death among those 65 or older are long drawn out diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc (25). These diseases require the other spouse to be a caregiver, which is very physically and emotionally draining. Older caregivers have higher levels of strain and depressive symptoms when their spouses are suffering, but many bounce back not too long after their spouses die. 90% felt that the death was a relief to the patient, and 72% admitted that the death was also a relief to them (25). For older people, the event of eath is less painful than the often long process. Finally, the condition of the couple's marriage is also a factor. "People with the most close-knit, loving marriages experience the most severe symptoms of sadness and yearning in the first 6 months after their loss", but after time, they begin to enjoy the memories without grieving (25). Also, widows and widowers who had problematic marriages are healthier psychologically following their spouses death. Many who were dependent on the other for financial reasons or for homemaking reveal they are stronger and more self-confident following the death of their spouse.
Gender greatly shapes the experience of spousal loss. Since it is generally the case that the male is the primary breadwinner of the family, women often lose financial support. When a husband dies, his Social Security checks are reduced: it is estimated that a widow's cost of living is about 80% of what the couples was (26). Men are more likely to experience sickness, disability, and death after their wives die because often their wife is their caretaker. Wives often monitor their husband's diets, encourage exercise, remind them to take medication, and discourage bad habits like smoking and drinking (26). When they are gone, so are these reminders. The wife tends to maintain connection with family and friends, and men lose this social support because they tend to be stronger and more silent. This social support is vital for physical and emotional health. Women have supportive relationships with friends and relatives and participation in community activities to fill the void left by her husband. Men as a result are more likely to seek new romantic partners soon after the loss of their wife. Remarriage and dating are ways to bounce back from the resulting loneliness and sadness. They also have more opportunities to find new partners due to the gender gap resulting from the difference in mortality (3 women for every man 85 and older), as well as the tendency to marry younger (26).
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Fatherhood
Questions:
1. According to Joseph Pleck, how did the role of fathers change in the United States over time? What are the expectations about fatherhood today, both according to the article and based on your own observations?
2. According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? How does these families' division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family?
3. According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?
According to Pleck, the role of fathers has changed from being a moral overseer, to a distant breadwinner, to a sex role model, and currently, it is a combination of all of these. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, fathers were seen as having much more responsibility and influence over there children than mothers. They were expected to proved a source of moral teaching and worldly judgements, and educate them on what God and the world expect of them. If they were literate themselves, they would teach reading and writing as well, and would guide sons into an occupational calling. Fathers also approved matches for both his sons and daughers, and allotted them family property. Women were seen as weak when it came to reason and tended to indulge their children and show too much affection, so fathers were expected to supervise them, restrain their inherent sinful urges, and encourage development of reason. Fathers replaced love, affection, and anger with approval and disapproval. The early nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries saw an increase in the importance of the role of mothers with the new gender ideology. Women's purity elevated them above men, making her better suited for raising children (353). Infancy and early childhood recieved greater emphasis, and others were thought to have special influence during that time, whereas in the past the emphasis was on the fathers role during the school-age years. In addition, with the onset of industrialization, fathers worked away from home for the first time, resulting in less time spent with his children. Fathers were beginning to be seen as breadwinners, providing money for consumption and security. They were seen as a "final authority", only stepping in when the mother's authority failed. From 1940-1965, a new perception of fatherhood appeared. As the idea of an absent father came about with the onset of World War II, the importance of a male figure in a child's life became apparent. While some fathers were actually gone during and after the war, some were physically there but were weak and passive. Studies showed that fathers were important sex role models. Boys struggled to develop a masculine identity without a father figure as a result of their initial identification with their mother. Fathers were also seen as essential for the sex role development of their daughters (357). Paternal involvement drew a glear distinction between maternal and paternal roles. Today, the sex role model of fatherhood is a secondary counterpoint to the dominant father-breadwinner role. Today, fathers are much more involved in their childrens lives however, generally, they are present at childbirth, involved with them when their infants as well as throughout their lives, participates in childcare, and is involved with his daughters as much as his sons. Based on my own observations, the father generally is the primary breadwinner of the family, but is much more involved in children's lives than he was in the past. It is acceptable for fathers to show affection and indulge them as mothers do, and also contribute greatly to character development and education as well. It seems to me that maternal and paternal roles have gradually become very similar over the years.
According to Deutsch, couples who work blue collar jobs who have children choose to work alternating shifts primarily because of money. It is cheaper for both of them to work and work different shifts that it is to pay for child care. Many couldn't afford it at all, others could have but believed it was economically unwise to do so. By avoiding paying for child care they could provide a more comfortable life for their family, take vacations, and possibly send the kids to college in the future. Another reason they alternate shifts is because they don't want other people raising their children. Many believed children should be cared for only by family. They saw it as their duty to instill their morals and values into the children. Others don't want strangers caring for their children, because they never know what is going on when they're gone and have heard horror stories about babysitters. This has to do with their social class becuase it is neccessary for both parents to work in order to support the family. Also, since blue collar families have less money, the child care that they paid for could be worse than that of the middle class. Third, they if the family could afford the "best" day care, they might suffer from a relative lack of control, in that that day care migth reflect middle-class values and be less responsive to their concerns than to the concerns of middle-class couples (119). There would also be a loss of time together. The divisions of labor in couples who alternate don't change these family's gender ideologies, they merely allow both the male and female to expand their roles. The wife may work, but neither she nor her husband ever considers her the primary breadwinner. when she works outside the home, she is helping because her husband cannot provide financially. In the same way, when a father helps out at home, he does it because his wife is not there. They define their role as "mothers-helpers". Mothers don't identify with work and breadwinning as much as fathers do. The father is more emotionally involved with his children, but the mother is still considered the emotional center of the family. If i had to, I would select an alternating shift arrangement for my family. Under the circumstances, it would be better that both me and my husband got to spend time with and take care of the children than having one parent stay home while the other works all day and never sees their family. At the same time though it would be hard sacrificing time spent with my spouse. Its definately the best way to raise children under the financial constraints, as it provides more money for the family as well as more time spent with the children for each parent.
According to Roberts, the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers are the emphasis on the Black "matriarchal" family that suggests that fatherlessness is a symptom of rebellious Black mothering (147). In this effect, there is little faith that Black fathers can have any positive affect on their children, and could never be suitable mentors for them. Black men are depicted today as gangster rappers, hustlers, rapists, gang bangers, drug dealers, and crack heads, an dmore generally, hypersexual and violent. He is someone to be disciplined, not someone who should be given power or respect (148). White Americans tend to emphasize the negative aspects of fatherlessness in Black communities rather than the positive potential of fatherhood. The effects of racial repression, especially high rates of unemployment and incaceration, led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father. Chronic poverty is not conducive to forming and maintaining stable marriages, and Black men's unemployment rates are more than double those of White men (149-150). If their economic status was improved, it would increase the number of Black men who lived with their children. In addition, Black fathers are also kept from their families through imprisonment. Over half of the one million inmates in American jails are Black men. This is a result of the disproportionate poverty and desperation in Black communities, and also because some federal and state sentencing policies are tougher on Black drug offenders (150). Unlike white women, black women were always expected to find a job outside of the home, and this devalues Black men as the breadwinner/ideal father. However, it is often overlooked that Black men actually stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother or able to provide financial support. One study showed that absent Black fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more support than did White absent fathers. In addition, more male mentoring is provided by grandfathers, uncles, older brothers, church elders, and neighbors within Black communities.
1. According to Joseph Pleck, how did the role of fathers change in the United States over time? What are the expectations about fatherhood today, both according to the article and based on your own observations?
2. According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? How does these families' division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family?
3. According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?
According to Pleck, the role of fathers has changed from being a moral overseer, to a distant breadwinner, to a sex role model, and currently, it is a combination of all of these. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, fathers were seen as having much more responsibility and influence over there children than mothers. They were expected to proved a source of moral teaching and worldly judgements, and educate them on what God and the world expect of them. If they were literate themselves, they would teach reading and writing as well, and would guide sons into an occupational calling. Fathers also approved matches for both his sons and daughers, and allotted them family property. Women were seen as weak when it came to reason and tended to indulge their children and show too much affection, so fathers were expected to supervise them, restrain their inherent sinful urges, and encourage development of reason. Fathers replaced love, affection, and anger with approval and disapproval. The early nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries saw an increase in the importance of the role of mothers with the new gender ideology. Women's purity elevated them above men, making her better suited for raising children (353). Infancy and early childhood recieved greater emphasis, and others were thought to have special influence during that time, whereas in the past the emphasis was on the fathers role during the school-age years. In addition, with the onset of industrialization, fathers worked away from home for the first time, resulting in less time spent with his children. Fathers were beginning to be seen as breadwinners, providing money for consumption and security. They were seen as a "final authority", only stepping in when the mother's authority failed. From 1940-1965, a new perception of fatherhood appeared. As the idea of an absent father came about with the onset of World War II, the importance of a male figure in a child's life became apparent. While some fathers were actually gone during and after the war, some were physically there but were weak and passive. Studies showed that fathers were important sex role models. Boys struggled to develop a masculine identity without a father figure as a result of their initial identification with their mother. Fathers were also seen as essential for the sex role development of their daughters (357). Paternal involvement drew a glear distinction between maternal and paternal roles. Today, the sex role model of fatherhood is a secondary counterpoint to the dominant father-breadwinner role. Today, fathers are much more involved in their childrens lives however, generally, they are present at childbirth, involved with them when their infants as well as throughout their lives, participates in childcare, and is involved with his daughters as much as his sons. Based on my own observations, the father generally is the primary breadwinner of the family, but is much more involved in children's lives than he was in the past. It is acceptable for fathers to show affection and indulge them as mothers do, and also contribute greatly to character development and education as well. It seems to me that maternal and paternal roles have gradually become very similar over the years.
According to Deutsch, couples who work blue collar jobs who have children choose to work alternating shifts primarily because of money. It is cheaper for both of them to work and work different shifts that it is to pay for child care. Many couldn't afford it at all, others could have but believed it was economically unwise to do so. By avoiding paying for child care they could provide a more comfortable life for their family, take vacations, and possibly send the kids to college in the future. Another reason they alternate shifts is because they don't want other people raising their children. Many believed children should be cared for only by family. They saw it as their duty to instill their morals and values into the children. Others don't want strangers caring for their children, because they never know what is going on when they're gone and have heard horror stories about babysitters. This has to do with their social class becuase it is neccessary for both parents to work in order to support the family. Also, since blue collar families have less money, the child care that they paid for could be worse than that of the middle class. Third, they if the family could afford the "best" day care, they might suffer from a relative lack of control, in that that day care migth reflect middle-class values and be less responsive to their concerns than to the concerns of middle-class couples (119). There would also be a loss of time together. The divisions of labor in couples who alternate don't change these family's gender ideologies, they merely allow both the male and female to expand their roles. The wife may work, but neither she nor her husband ever considers her the primary breadwinner. when she works outside the home, she is helping because her husband cannot provide financially. In the same way, when a father helps out at home, he does it because his wife is not there. They define their role as "mothers-helpers". Mothers don't identify with work and breadwinning as much as fathers do. The father is more emotionally involved with his children, but the mother is still considered the emotional center of the family. If i had to, I would select an alternating shift arrangement for my family. Under the circumstances, it would be better that both me and my husband got to spend time with and take care of the children than having one parent stay home while the other works all day and never sees their family. At the same time though it would be hard sacrificing time spent with my spouse. Its definately the best way to raise children under the financial constraints, as it provides more money for the family as well as more time spent with the children for each parent.
According to Roberts, the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers are the emphasis on the Black "matriarchal" family that suggests that fatherlessness is a symptom of rebellious Black mothering (147). In this effect, there is little faith that Black fathers can have any positive affect on their children, and could never be suitable mentors for them. Black men are depicted today as gangster rappers, hustlers, rapists, gang bangers, drug dealers, and crack heads, an dmore generally, hypersexual and violent. He is someone to be disciplined, not someone who should be given power or respect (148). White Americans tend to emphasize the negative aspects of fatherlessness in Black communities rather than the positive potential of fatherhood. The effects of racial repression, especially high rates of unemployment and incaceration, led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father. Chronic poverty is not conducive to forming and maintaining stable marriages, and Black men's unemployment rates are more than double those of White men (149-150). If their economic status was improved, it would increase the number of Black men who lived with their children. In addition, Black fathers are also kept from their families through imprisonment. Over half of the one million inmates in American jails are Black men. This is a result of the disproportionate poverty and desperation in Black communities, and also because some federal and state sentencing policies are tougher on Black drug offenders (150). Unlike white women, black women were always expected to find a job outside of the home, and this devalues Black men as the breadwinner/ideal father. However, it is often overlooked that Black men actually stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother or able to provide financial support. One study showed that absent Black fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more support than did White absent fathers. In addition, more male mentoring is provided by grandfathers, uncles, older brothers, church elders, and neighbors within Black communities.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Critical Analysis of Family Life
Critical Analysis of Family Life:
For this week's blog entry, I would like you to consider how race, gender, social class, and sexuality (1) impacted and shaped your family life so far, (2) affected your ideas about families, and (3) might affect your family life in the future. The purpose of this assignment is to get you thinking about how social positions affect our family experiences as well as to contemplate what your beliefs are and why you have them. Such things often seem “normal” or “natural” so try to think critically when doing this exercise. This blog entry will be graded based on your critical thinking about these issues.
I grew up in Andover MA, a wealthy suburb of Boston as part of what would considered an upper-middle class, Irish-Catholic family with an older brother and an older sister. I find my family to be very open minded when it comes to race, gender, and class, but not as open minded when it comes to sexuality. In regards to social class, I come from a town that is generally fairly wealthy. I also grew up next to one of the poorest cities in the United States: Lawrence, MA. The transition from my town to Lawrence was always fairly drastic. Any community service or donations that I participated in usually took place in Lawrence or for the people that lived there. My parents have always stressed helping others who need it. I never considered myself as wealthy as a lot of my classmates in high school. I know we have had many financial constraints, but they have not really affected me directly yet, in that they prevented me from doing or having something that I really wanted. All 3 of us went to public schools, though I was given the option of a private high school if I had wanted it. My parents have sacrificed a lot to send all 3 of us to Boston College, and we have received a great deal of financial aid in order to do so. I made my decision of what college to attend when my brother was a senior here and my sister was a sophomore. I was given the opportunity to attend a less prestigious university in the honors program with a scholarship for $15,000 a year. This decision was very tough for me, because my father is very strict about our financial needs. I knew he really wanted me to accept the scholarship, but after much deliberation I decided that if I did not attend BC I would always regret it. My father definitely sacrificed a lot to let me go where he knew I really wanted to go. I've always been taught the value of hard work, having to do chores to earn allowance when I was younger, and contributing money I make at my job towards my college education. As for race, I come from a white, Irish-Catholic family and have not really been faced with the hardships that other races tend to experience. We all have friends from many different backgrounds, and I don't see anyone in my family having a problem with anyone dating outside our race or culture. I don't see much difference when it comes to gender in my family. When me and my siblings were little my mother would only work one day a week and stay home with us the rest of the time. She usually does the cooking and cleaning as well. However, both of my parents have worked full time jobs since I was in middle school and allowed to stay home by myself. As for us, my parents expect all 3 of us to be successful regardless of our gender. When it comes to sexuality however, my family is incredibly conservative. We hardly ever talk about it, except for the obligatory awkward conversation that occurred in 5th grade when we first started having sex education classes. At this point, my mother expressed her wish that we would all wait until marriage before having sex. In regards to homosexuality, I feel like I come from a completely different world as my parents sometimes. I have 2 male cousins that are gay, one of whom is my age and I grew up being very good friends with. One is much older than me and I don't remember anything about my family's reaction to his coming out. But when my other cousin came out, my family, in particular my Grandma and father, were pretty upset. They still love him of course, but they definitely don't approve, and I think this can be attributed to how things were when they were growing up. My sister, brother and I share similar opinions and are much more accepting of it because we've grown up learning to accept all types of people regardless of race, gender, social class, or sexuality. I've grown up observing a variety of types of families, many much different than my own, and I think this has led me to realize that there is no strict definition of "family". I've also realized just how much of an affect your family and your background have on the way you treat other people. In the future, I plan to raise my family to be openminded and respectful of all kinds of people and all kinds of families, no matter what my own views are.
For this week's blog entry, I would like you to consider how race, gender, social class, and sexuality (1) impacted and shaped your family life so far, (2) affected your ideas about families, and (3) might affect your family life in the future. The purpose of this assignment is to get you thinking about how social positions affect our family experiences as well as to contemplate what your beliefs are and why you have them. Such things often seem “normal” or “natural” so try to think critically when doing this exercise. This blog entry will be graded based on your critical thinking about these issues.
I grew up in Andover MA, a wealthy suburb of Boston as part of what would considered an upper-middle class, Irish-Catholic family with an older brother and an older sister. I find my family to be very open minded when it comes to race, gender, and class, but not as open minded when it comes to sexuality. In regards to social class, I come from a town that is generally fairly wealthy. I also grew up next to one of the poorest cities in the United States: Lawrence, MA. The transition from my town to Lawrence was always fairly drastic. Any community service or donations that I participated in usually took place in Lawrence or for the people that lived there. My parents have always stressed helping others who need it. I never considered myself as wealthy as a lot of my classmates in high school. I know we have had many financial constraints, but they have not really affected me directly yet, in that they prevented me from doing or having something that I really wanted. All 3 of us went to public schools, though I was given the option of a private high school if I had wanted it. My parents have sacrificed a lot to send all 3 of us to Boston College, and we have received a great deal of financial aid in order to do so. I made my decision of what college to attend when my brother was a senior here and my sister was a sophomore. I was given the opportunity to attend a less prestigious university in the honors program with a scholarship for $15,000 a year. This decision was very tough for me, because my father is very strict about our financial needs. I knew he really wanted me to accept the scholarship, but after much deliberation I decided that if I did not attend BC I would always regret it. My father definitely sacrificed a lot to let me go where he knew I really wanted to go. I've always been taught the value of hard work, having to do chores to earn allowance when I was younger, and contributing money I make at my job towards my college education. As for race, I come from a white, Irish-Catholic family and have not really been faced with the hardships that other races tend to experience. We all have friends from many different backgrounds, and I don't see anyone in my family having a problem with anyone dating outside our race or culture. I don't see much difference when it comes to gender in my family. When me and my siblings were little my mother would only work one day a week and stay home with us the rest of the time. She usually does the cooking and cleaning as well. However, both of my parents have worked full time jobs since I was in middle school and allowed to stay home by myself. As for us, my parents expect all 3 of us to be successful regardless of our gender. When it comes to sexuality however, my family is incredibly conservative. We hardly ever talk about it, except for the obligatory awkward conversation that occurred in 5th grade when we first started having sex education classes. At this point, my mother expressed her wish that we would all wait until marriage before having sex. In regards to homosexuality, I feel like I come from a completely different world as my parents sometimes. I have 2 male cousins that are gay, one of whom is my age and I grew up being very good friends with. One is much older than me and I don't remember anything about my family's reaction to his coming out. But when my other cousin came out, my family, in particular my Grandma and father, were pretty upset. They still love him of course, but they definitely don't approve, and I think this can be attributed to how things were when they were growing up. My sister, brother and I share similar opinions and are much more accepting of it because we've grown up learning to accept all types of people regardless of race, gender, social class, or sexuality. I've grown up observing a variety of types of families, many much different than my own, and I think this has led me to realize that there is no strict definition of "family". I've also realized just how much of an affect your family and your background have on the way you treat other people. In the future, I plan to raise my family to be openminded and respectful of all kinds of people and all kinds of families, no matter what my own views are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)